18799 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Wednesday 19 October 2005 ______ The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m. The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers. AUDIT OFFICE Report The President tabled, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, a performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Oversight of State Owned Electricity Corporations: NSW Treasury", dated October 2005. Ordered to be printed. TABLING OF PAPERS The Hon. Tony Kelly tabled the following paper: Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act—Report of NSW Nursery Industry Services Committee for the year ended 30 June 2005. Ordered to be printed. PETITIONS Same-sex Marriage Legislation Petition opposing same-sex marriage legislation, received from Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. Unborn Child Protection Petition requesting legislation to protect foetuses of 20 weeks gestation and to make resources available for post-abortion follow-up, received from Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. Desalination and Sustainable Water Supply Petition opposing construction of a desalination plant in Sydney, and requesting a sustainable water supply through harvesting and recycling of water, and water efficiency, received from Ms Sylvia Hale. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.11 a.m.]: I move: That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 183 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to dental health care in New South Wales, be called on forthwith. This motion is urgent. It was prompted by the Minister for Health's response to a question I asked in this House one week ago. This motion is urgent because I believe the Minister's reply clearly demonstrated his contempt for members of this House as well as for any notion of accountability. This motion is urgent because the Minister's response was, I believe, deliberately designed to create a false impression that lists of people waiting for public dental treatment were available on the department's web site, when such was not the case. This motion is urgent because I believe the House should deal now with the matter of the Minister's misleading or, at best, 18800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 October 2005 calculatedly ambiguous reply, rather than quietly acquiesce in his abuse of the question time process, a process which lies at the heart of responsible, accountable, democratic government. This motion is urgent because, at a time when this Government's lack of transparency and openness are being questioned throughout the community, it is important that this House underscores the importance of question time as one means of delivering on the principles of transparency and accountability. A fundamental aspect of the democratic process and the Westminster system of government is that Ministers should deliver truthful, accurate and frank answers to questions. This matter is urgent because it calls on the Minister to explain his response to my question and gives him the opportunity to do so now, one week after I asked the question. I am aware that the Standing Committee on Social Issues is currently conducting an inquiry into dental services in New South Wales. I have no wish to in any way comment upon the committee's deliberations, and I will not do so. But the social issues committee is not a place in which to pursue the question of the accuracy or otherwise of the Minister's reply to my question. This House is the place where that issue must be pursued, and now is the time to do it. As I have said, I believe the Minister attempted to mislead the House by implying that the Government is taking the provision of public dental health services seriously and that comprehensive data is available on the department's web site, when that is not the case. There are other aspects to my motion that also need to be dealt with as a matter of urgency, but they will be canvassed in the course of the debate. Suffice it to say that public dental health services are in crisis, especially in rural areas, and the Government needs to confront this issue now and act immediately. The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Health) [11.14 a.m.]: I would be happy to appear before the upper House committee that is investigating this issue. I love attending parliamentary committees. The last time I appeared before an estimates committee I was told I was not required to go back. I would be quite happy to attend the social issues committee and answer Ms Sylvia Hale's questions in relation to dental services. In fact, a substantial submission has been put before the committee. But I do not see why the urgency of the matter is such that the issues need to be canvassed in this debate. I will not be a research service for the Greens. The motion they put forward provides an answer to the question posed by Ms Sylvia Hale. If she was able to do her research and find an answer to her question, why is she now wasting my time and the time of the House? The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [11.15 a.m.]: I cannot support the motion. First, it is not urgent that the social issues committee inquire into the issue. Second, it is understood that private members' day is Thursday, not Wednesday, and to breach that protocol without consulting members is totally inappropriate. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.16 a.m.]: The Minister has indicated that he is happy to appear before the Standing Committee on Social Issues to discuss the issues raised by Ms Sylvia Hale. One of committee's terms of reference is that it inquire into and report on the demand for dental services, including issues relating to waiting times for treatment. This matter is before the committee. Prior to this debate the Minister indicated to me, as he said earlier in the House, that he is willing to appear before the social issues committee. I believe that is the way the matter should be dealt with. Question—That the motion be agreed to—put. The House divided. Ayes, 20 Mr Breen Miss Gardiner Mr Pearce Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Gay Ms Rhiannon Mr Clarke Ms Hale Mr Ryan Mr Cohen Mr Jenkins Mr Tingle Ms Cusack Mr Lynn Tellers, Mrs Forsythe Ms Parker Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mrs Pavey Mr Harwin Noes, 20 Ms Burnswoods Mr Hatzistergos Mr Roozendaal Mr Catanzariti Mr Kelly Ms Sharpe Mr Costa Mr Macdonald Mr Tsang Mr Della Bosca Reverend Dr Moyes Dr Wong Mr Donnelly Reverend Nile Tellers, Ms Fazio Mr Obeid Mr Primrose Ms Griffin Ms Robertson Mr West 19 October 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18801 The PRESIDENT: There being 20 ayes and 20 noes, there is an equality of votes. In keeping with convention, I cast my vote with the noes and declare the question to be resolved in the negative. Motion negatived. DEFAMATION BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 18 October 2005. Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.23 a.m.]: Defamation is an issue that is very relevant for the Greens because increasingly our local councillors are facing defamation cases, not because they have done anything wrong but because they are doing their job. This happens because often developers who are very determined to bring forward large-scale developments in local council areas come up against progressive members of local councils who want more transparency, who want their local community to have a fair deal, and who want to ensure that before certain developments go ahead their environmental and social impacts are thoroughly looked at. Because of the endeavours of our local councillors some unscrupulous individuals are bringing spurious defamation actions. I do not imagine that this is something that will be reduced in the near future but we are certainly conscious that the law has a critical role to play in this respect. If we tightened up our defamation laws in this State we could reduce the number of cases of strategic litigation against public participation [SLAPP] suits, which is something that is becoming more common in our community as people believe that they have, quite rightly, a right to speak out about a whole range of inequities. Last night I was in the midst of discussing how defamation laws, while necessary, are not equally accessible to all in our society. The fact that defamation law is said to be uniform throughout Australia misses the real story, and that is the inadequate access people have to the courts. This bill and this Government have done little to solve the problem. The Government has continued to protect the interests of the big end of town and ignored others in our community who have far less access to power and money. The Greens support the use of defamation laws where there is a real threat to a person's reputation from unfounded and spurious allegations. My colleague Mr Ian Cohen has gone through a number of defamation cases and gained a wealth of experience in this area. He won an out-of-court settlement from the Daily Telegraph over an article by Piers Ackerman that clearly defamed him. After going through an extremely excruciating court process over a number of years, he received an apology, which was printed in the Daily Telegraph. But it was small compensation for the suffering he had experienced as a public figure who had been clearly defamed. The Greens are also well aware that defamation laws are often misused to intimidate individuals and stop them speaking out against some of the many injustices in our society.